Fieldwork: evaluating an enquiry

Evaluating an enquiry

Evaluating means judging how good your enquiry was, and how far you can trust its conclusions. Ask:

What problems were there in collecting data?
What were the limits of the data and methods?
What other data would have helped?
How reliable are the conclusions?

For example (written for this app): the orange used as a float was blown by the wind at one site; only eight river sites were measured, all on one day after dry weather; data on channel depth would have helped explain velocity.

Key terms

Accuracy, reliability and validity

These three words mean different things:

Word	In plain words	Example
	How close a measurement is to the true value	A float blown by the wind gives an inaccurate velocity
	Whether you'd get the same results if you did it again	Repeating each float three times and taking the mean makes results more reliable
	Whether the enquiry actually tests what it set out to	Measuring on one day after dry weather may not show the river's usual velocity

To improve an enquiry: collect more data, at more sites or times; use more accurate equipment, such as a flow meter; and repeat measurements.

Key terms

How far do the results support the conclusion?

A conclusion is only as strong as the evidence behind it. Ask:

How many sites or people were sampled? A few readings may not be typical.
Were there , and can they be explained?
Do , such as census figures or Environment Agency readings, agree with your results?
Would different times, such as another season or a weekday, give different results?

For example (written for this app): velocity rose downstream at seven of eight sites, which supports the hypothesis, but with only eight sites on one day, the conclusion is tentative, not certain.

Key terms

Writing an evaluation answer

Longer evaluation questions on your fieldwork reward a balanced judgement, not a list of problems. A good answer:

says what went well, such as a careful sampling method;
explains the limitations, and how each one affected the results;
suggests specific improvements, and why they would help;
ends with a : how far the conclusions can be trusted.

Exam tip

Make each point specific to your own enquiry. 'More data would help' earns little; 'measuring at 15 sites, not 8, would show whether site 4 was an anomaly' earns more.

Exam practice

Plan your own answer first, then open the model answers to see what each level looks like.

9 marks · about 12 minutes · +3 SPaG

For one of your fieldwork enquiries, to what extent were your data collection methods reliable?

To what extent means: Weigh up how far something is true, with evidence on both sides, then give a clear judgement.

Level 1 (Basic)· 3/9 marks (band 1–3)

Our methods were quite reliable because we repeated them. But the wind blew the float.

Why this level: One strength and one weakness, stated simply, with no detail or judgement. To reach Level 2: describe the methods and explain how each strength or weakness affected reliability. In the exam, use the details of your own enquiry.

Level 2 (Clear)· 5/9 marks (band 4–6)

We timed a float three times at each site and took the mean, which made the results more reliable, and we used the same method at all eight sites. However, the orange we used as a float was blown by the wind at one site, so that velocity was inaccurate. We also measured only on one day.

Why this level: Clear strengths and weaknesses, each explained. But their effect on the conclusions isn't weighed, and there's no judgement. To reach Level 3: assess how much they matter, suggest improvements and judge. In the exam, use the details of your own enquiry.

Level 3 (Detailed)· 8/9 marks (band 7–9)

Our methods were partly reliable. We timed a float over a measured 10 m three times at each site and took the mean, which reduced the effect of a single odd timing, and we used the same method and equipment at all eight sites, so results were comparable. However, there were weaknesses. The orange we used as a float was blown by the wind at one site, so that velocity was inaccurate, and a float only measures surface speed, not the whole river. We measured on only one day, after dry weather, so the results show low flow, not the river's usual velocity. With only eight sites, one inaccurate result had a big effect on the pattern. Overall, the methods were fairly reliable for that day, because repeats and the same method at every site made results consistent, but they were less reliable for the river as a whole. A flow meter and visits in different seasons would make the conclusions more trustworthy.

Why this level: Detailed evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, their effect on reliability, improvements and a clear judgement. This is Level 3. In the exam, use the details of your own enquiry.

Take the quiz